Global Stability Benefits China and the US

Published in Huanqiu
(China) on 16 April 2020
by Wang Fan (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Liza Roberts. Edited by Patricia Simoni.
In this critical time, as the novel coronavirus ravages the entire world, some United States politicians do not want to join forces with other countries to collectively fight the epidemic, preferring to use this as an opportunity to undermine other nations. It must be said that this is a shallow decision that lacks either any historical or strategic consideration.

First of all, from a security angle, global stability is beneficial for both China and the U.S. Both countries are highly globalized and constitute a vital part of the global supply chain. In contrast, global turmoil will lead to varying levels of economic and political harm for both China and the U.S. This chaos may even jeopardize the images of these two nations as well as their international standing, thereby damaging both their soft and hard power.

Secondly, China-U.S. conflict will lead to unknown consequences. In our modern era, there can be no winner of a dispute between two great powers, and conflict will lead instead to the sudden rise of an as yet unknown third party. This is the key reason why both China and the U.S. must act as responsible powers. The China-U.S. dispute is related not only to the future of these two nations, but is a strategic issue that will determine the stability of international infrastructure as well as the direction of global development.

This unknown third party may be an existing powerful country, or it may be an influential or potentially important organization. These third parties are currently waiting for conflicting powers to commit critical mistakes. Judging by the comparative strength of major powers, these potential third parties may take advantage of the confrontation between these countries at any time to quickly increase their own influence.

From a historical perspective, a confrontation between two major powers serves to exacerbate international divisions and competition, and has the potential to trigger a new Cold War or even a local hot war.

Third, from an economic perspective, although plans that lead to mutual benefit do not maximize profit, they are rational and feasible. An economic crisis in either China or the U.S. does not serve as an opportunity for the other.

Under the assumption that a strong China will inevitably seek to act as a global hegemon, the U.S. has sought out and strengthened the misconception that China is following the path toward a power struggle, as defined by realism theory in international relations. This has intensified the confrontation between China and the U.S. As for China, in facing the current moment, it will need to increasingly make rational and wise decisions. Only in this way is there a possibility of avoiding the intrusion of emotions. From a realistic perspective, it is still of the utmost importance to avoid an exacerbated conflict with the U.S. This is also key for China to avoid falling into an American-style strategic conflict. This issue must be analyzed from a complex strategic perspective, i.e., whether or not we continue to look at this question as one of competition under conditions of interdependence.

From the perspective of economic development, an economic downturn or decline of the United States is not only a domestic calamity, but may also have dire consequences for the global economy. In the interdependent world we have today, China’s development cannot be achieved at the expense of the continuous decline of the world’s largest country. Even if this were possible, it is highly improbable, and the risks and costs of such a pursuit are extremely high. Based on its own fear of possible decline, the U.S. will increasingly suppress other countries, particularly those that challenge it. The U.S. might even take extreme measures. This dangerous situation must be avoided in order to safeguard against possible consequences.

The decline of the U.S. is not a fortunate situation for China. Similarly, China’s economic difficulties by no means benefit the U.S. Therefore, China-U.S. competition might exist, but confrontation must be avoided. Based on what is required for the mutual benefit and stability of both countries, China does not wish to see the U.S. decline. Should the U.S. need it, China is willing to lend a helping hand, for to help the U.S. is also to help China itself. Similarly, from a U.S. strategic perspective, continuing to choose cooperation with China is to choose the best way to help itself.

Fourth, a dispute between major powers could lead to a suboptimal outcome. In the current state of relationships between major powers, there is a sense of “In me, there is you” and vice versa. Our interests are intertwined. In a conflict between major powers, there can be no winner and no potential for victory. It is not feasible to try to maximize personal benefit by eliminating the other party because the the price of doing so is far too high. This approach only serves to damage oneself almost as much as the opponent. Similarly, seeking to maximize personal interests often makes it difficult to succeed in a winner-take-all situation when a nation’s own interests are at stake. Because that type of behavior would also incite fierce opposition from other countries, it is not sustainable.

Relationships between major powers can be maintained only through mutual respect and accommodation and seeking outcomes acceptable to both sides. Such relationships cannot be sustained by a solution that is preferable to only one country. A perspective of mutual benefit must be based in the common understandings of both parties. Mutual benefit should also be the most important strategic consideration between major powers, particularly between China and the U.S. If some U.S. politicians blindly adopt an antagonistic attitude that lacks strategic vision, this will only serve to worsen China-U.S. relations and the end result can only be a loss for both sides. China does not wish this to happen. This is why it is important to maintain cooperation between China and the U.S.

China-U.S. relations need to be regulated and crafted to promote the mutual benefit of both countries. This sort of crafting begins with each side reshaping itself, then using this new approach to gradually balance each other. It does not simply entail encouraging the other party to change while remaining the same.

A solution that benefits only one side is difficult to sustain. Only through focusing on being complementary and recognizing the inequalities and diversity of development can the countries achieve a result to their mutual benefit. From the perspective of interdependence, both China and the U.S. need to assist their economically troubled competitors.

This is also the underlying meaning of the global community. Countries need to share their suffering as well as their triumphs, because the fates of all countries are connected. Human willpower cannot alter this truth. At the same time, normal interaction between countries will lead to situation where the effect is to provide mutual aid. In simple terms: Only once I am good and you are good can everyone truly benefit.


在新冠肺炎疫情肆虐全球的严峻时刻,美国一些政客不思与其他国家一起,共同联手抗疫,反而把它当成削弱别国的机会。不得不说,这是缺少历史观和战略观的肤浅之举。

首先,从安全视角分析,世界的总体稳定有利于中美两国,中美两国都是国际化程度很高的国家,也是全球产业链的重要组成部分。相反,世界的动荡对于中美两国都将造成不同程度的政治经济伤害,甚至危及两国既有的国家形象和国际地位,使两国的软硬实力受到损害。

其次,中美相争将引发不确定的后果。在当今时代,中美两个大国之争不会有赢家,反而会引发一个不确定的第三方崛起。这就是为什么中美两国都要成为负责任大国的关键原因。中美之争不仅仅关系到两方的胜负问题,而且是决定世界发展方向、决定着国际格局稳定的战略性问题。

一个“不确定的第三方”可能是某个现有的大国,也可能是某些势力或潜在的组织。这些第三方正在等待冲突的大国犯颠覆性错误。从大国力量对比来看,这些潜在的第三方随时可能利用时机以及大国对抗的危机而迅速壮大起来。

从历史上看,两强对抗会加剧国际力量的分化重组和争夺,从而引发新的冷战甚至是局部热战的可能。

第三,从经济角度来看,互利共赢虽非利益最大化的方案,但却是理性可行的方案。中美两国任何一国的经济危机都非另一方的机遇。

美国在“中国将国强必霸”的臆想下,片面地寻找和加强了一种错误认识,即中国正在走现实主义理论的权力争夺老路。这使得中美之间对抗的色彩加剧。对于中国而言,越是在这种时刻,越需要做出理性明智的选择,尽可能避免情绪化心理的干扰。从现实角度来看,避免与美国的对抗加剧仍然是当务之急。也是避免中国陷入“美国式战略对抗”错误思维的关键所在。我们必须从一个战略性的复合视角来看待这一问题。那就是,是否仍然坚持以相互依存条件下的竞争来看待这一问题。

从经济发展的角度来看,美国的失败、经济下滑和崩溃不仅是美国之祸,也可能对全球经济带来巨大后果。在相互依存的今天,中国的进一步发展不可能以世界第一大国的不断衰落为代价而实现。即或有可能,其概率也是极小的,且其风险代价也是极其高昂的。因为美国基于其自身可能衰落的恐惧,将会加剧美国对其他国家尤其是对挑战国的打压,甚至有可能做出极端举动。我们必须全力避免这一危险局面的出现,也必须预防可能带来的后果。

美国衰落难成中国之幸。同理,中国出现经济困境也绝不是美国的福音。因此,中美竞争可能存在,但对抗需要避免。基于共同利益共同稳定的需求,中国并不愿意看到美国的衰落。如果美国有需要,中国愿意施以援手,帮助美国也是帮助中国自己。同样,从战略的角度来看,美国继续选择与中国的合作也就是继续选择最好地帮助自己的过程。

第四,大国之争只能选择次优解。当今的大国关系你中有我、我中有你,利益相互交织,大国相争没有赢家,也不可能战而胜之。那种试图以消灭对方来谋取最大利益的选择是没有可行性的,因为在这个过程中,自身所付出的代价也将极为巨大。此所谓“伤敌一千,自损八百”。同样,谋求自身利益最大化,时时以自身国家利益至上的“满盘通吃”做法也将难以成功。因为那同样会引发其他国家的激烈反弹而无法持续。

大国关系只能是互敬互让、谋取都能够接受的相对利益,谋取对各方都相对有益的结果,而不可能是只有利于某一个国家的最优解。互利共赢的视角必须基于双方的共同认识。也应该重新成为大国之间,尤其是中美之间最重要的战略共识。如果美国一些政客一味采取缺少战略眼光的对抗之举,从而恶化中美两国的关系,其结果只能是两败俱伤。中国不希望出现这一局面。这就是我们一直致力于维护中美合作大局的原因所在。

中美关系需要调整,需要新的相互塑造。这种塑造是各自重塑自己,以共同演进形成新的平衡,而不是单纯强调对方的改变,而自己固守不变。

中美之间任何一方的单向受益都是难以持续的,只有强调互补性,在发展的差异和多样性的前提下,坚持互利共赢才是唯一选择。基于相互依存的视角,中美都需要帮助经济上陷于困境的竞争对手。

这也是命运共同体的深刻含义所在。国与国之间不仅需要同甘,也需要共苦。因为,国与国之间的拖带效应会将国家的命运绑在一起,而且不以人的意志为转移。与此同时,国与国之间的良性互动也会产生共济效应,各美其美,美美与共。通俗来说,即是你好我好,大家才能都好。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Australia: As Trump Turns His Back on Renewables, China Is Building the Future

Sri Lanka: Epstein Files, Mossad and Kompromat Diplomacy

Egypt: The B-2 Gamble: How Israel Is Rewriting Middle East Power Politics

Ecuador: Monsters in Florida

Germany: Big Tech Wants a Say in EU Law: More Might for the Mighty

Topics

Indonesia: Trump Needs a Copy Editor

Indonesia: Trump’s Chaos Strategy Is Hurting His Allies, Not Just His Rivals

Sri Lanka: Epstein Files, Mossad and Kompromat Diplomacy

Sri Lanka: Is America Moving towards the Far Right?

Turkey: Musk versus the Machine: Disrupting the 2-Party System

Canada: How To Avoid ICE? Follow the Rules

Canada: Trump Doesn’t Hold All the Cards on International Trade

Ireland: The Irish Times View on Trump and Ukraine: a Step in the Right Direction

Related Articles

Indonesia: Trump Needs a Copy Editor

Australia: As Trump Turns His Back on Renewables, China Is Building the Future

Egypt: The B-2 Gamble: How Israel Is Rewriting Middle East Power Politics

Germany: Trump’s Disappointment Will Have No Adverse Consequences for Putin*

Spain: Not a Good Time for Solidarity